And Just What Is Censure Supposed To Accomplish?

[ThomWV]

It seems meaningless.

[leftofthedial]

1. symbolic

but it has significant PR potential

[The Magistrate]

2. Just Talking Up The Suggested Grounds, Sir

And securing some publicity for them, has some value, it seems to me. Atmospherics are often of use in politics, even if they do not lead directly to any material result....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Nite Owl]

3. It's some form at least

of accountability. Censure doesn't rule out impeachment at another time. It's also historical, dimson and co. don't want that down in the history books, it's only happened once before.

[aden_nak]

4. It is a largely symbolic gesture. BUT. . .

Odds are the Republicans in congress aren't going to be willing to go that far. They don't mind distancing themselves from Bush on certain issues, but I don't think they are ready to reject him flat out like that. Which means in 2006, they can't run on a "I disagree with Bush" platform. Because they can have their no vote on censure thrown in their faces.

[rodeodance]

8. exactly, that is why is not more than 'sybolic"

[rodeodance]

5. it sends the Message that Pres. was WRONG! great strategy by Russ as

it will show up individual Senators who have no spine.

[liveoaktx]

7. I agree. Senators can't bring articles of impeachment, the investigation

has been shut down, censure keeps the heat on as well as keep it public.

[fooj]

11. Expose the treasonous, rat bastards!

Couldn't happen to a nicer group of pricks!

Peace.

[moobu2]

6. It keeps president Evil’s illegal wiretapping in the news- for one thing

[bushmeister0]

12. Keeping the pressure on.

I agree. Going into the midterms, this is a great weapon to use. As I wrote at my blog today, "such an audacious move could overwhelm a reeling Republican majority and a weak president and propel the Democrats into control of Congress, despite themselves. Although, it's true that the obvious downside of this move is that it might unite the currently fractious Republicans to rally around the president, the upside is also that it might unite the Republicans to rally around the president."

This issure backs the Republicans into a corner. They can either keep fighting this issue and have it hang around their necks until November or they can relent and not have to worry about Conyers impeaching W. if they lose the House.

[newyawker99]

19. Hi bushmeister0!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[BuyingThyme]

9. Educating the public.

[fooj]

10. It forces those treasonous, rat bastards on the record!

Time to hold the bastards accountable.

Peace.

[Just Me]

13. Could potentially blast all those who fail to hold the pResident,...

,...responsible for violating his oath of office, the Constitution and federal law, out of their political careers. Their record on this issue may become their own demise.

[jane_pippin]

14. I think it could accomplish a few things:

First, it sends the message that at least one Senator is willing to take his job as a public servant seriously and hold Bush accountable for breaking the law. Based on the content of Russ' speech, (which of course hasn't happened yet), it could (and I assume it will but I could be wrong) outline how he broke the law--what actions he took or failed to take that were in violation of the law and why he deserves censure. That'll be in the record.

I think it also holds other Senators accountable. Russ isn't someone who just grandstands or showboats for fun. He believes this has to be done and I believe time will show that Russ is right about that. Depending on how other Senators react--as I said in another thread, all of them, but particularly Senators looking to either distance themselves from George in '06 or run as "reforming Dems" in '08--it will show where they do or do not stand on holding this administration accountable for its illegal actions too. They're being given a chance to stand up to the corruption. Whether they do it or not remains to be seen.

As someone else mentioned, it brings attention to the harmful effect of George & Co.'s lies and illegal activity. It brings attention to the fact that the President of the United States committed a serious crime. More than once. That's important too.

Now, I'm not a policy wonk and I don't have decades of political experience under my belt. I'm just a concerned citizen, and as it happens a constituent of Feingold's, and I'm proud to see him stand up in whatever way he can to this harmful and corrupt administration. And to answer your other question, yes, he gets up before noon. He was on CNN early to talk about this and wrote a diary at Kos this morning. Here it is: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/13/114144/941

[MrPrax]

15. Takes pressure off

of the Democrats...they can go out on the hustings and say they voted for 'censure' when asked why they voted for the war and the Patriot Act...

[Sammy Pepys]

16. Well, I like this idea better than....

...the last minute Alito filibuster project.

[Nutmegger]

17. Last President who was censured was Andrew Jackson

That that sends a damn powerful message. Meaningless? I think not.

[Hissyspit]

18. After censure put down by Repubs, Dems who win in November can go

after impeachment and be able to say "Well, we tried to censure him!"